The real reasons for housing sprawl

In his latest ramblings, Harry Bell sinks to a new low, accusing a section of his readers of social apartheid, comparing them to South African white racists (Splits Along Class Lines In Tory Party And This City, Harry Bell, Kentish Gazette, June 9).

Had he attended meetings like the Langton and Nackington Residents Association annual meeting rather than frequenting alcohol-fuelled bars and pubs, he would have heard the main concerns of the “moneyed ( sic), educated, white, later middle-aged and property-owning” class being loss of prime agricultural land and traffic issues for the city as a whole.

Affordable housing was mentioned in the context of inclusion in any development, not in exclusion.

South Canterbury residents are not “discriminatory, snobbish, or elitist”, but many have consistently believed Canterbury City Council has failed to follow national planning guidance, which states: “Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality”.

“These” people are on the whole intelligent enough to see the links between the EU, immigration and population growth.

They are also fearful of the loss of countryside and recognise a need for food production as great a basic human need as shelter.

Some fail to see the paradox, some struggle with it, some believe Brexit to be the answer; it may be part of the answer.

In addition to population growth, fuelled significantly by immigration, it is argued by politicians of all colours that high house prices are the product of lack of supply – that if we build more houses they will be more plentiful, so affordable, but the housing market is not readily price elastic like apples or coffee.

The demand side also needs to be addressed.

In the 1980s and 1990s, monetary policy was used to squeeze out long-term inflation, but in the housing market it has been used in reverse in an attempt to ‘help’ first-time buyers – successive governments have given cheap loans and builders’ incentives.

This pushes more money into the market and helps only to push up prices.

Add to this foreign money washing into London’s market, which then ripples out to the Home Counties; relaxation of inheritance tax allowing more inherited money into the housing market; the demand for second homes, for example in Whitstable; and the student-let market – and there is cash-fuelled inflation leaving those without resources unable to get on even the ‘affordable’ housing ladder.

It also means there are possibly enough homes to go round but that some people have more than one while others have none!

These national issues must be addressed by government alongside immigration if future generations are ever to know the UK as other than a large housing development.

Sadly, there is little chance of these plans to destroy best farmland being rejected outright, but a good deal of work needs to be done between now and 2030 to ensure the impact on our city is reduced as much as possible. Clive Flisher Old Dover Road, Canterbury

As someone who has consistently voted against certain more extreme aspects of the Local Plan, can I please put things into context?

The Lib Dems are in favour of most of the sites in the Local Plan and as a member of the planning committee I have already voted in favour of some of them. So I’m not against all housebuilding. However, we do want proper transport links. That’s why we are in favour of a major new garden city at Ebbsfleet to relieve the pressure on towns in Kent.

Ebbsfleet is close to London and has a high-speed rail station, the M2, M25, even the Thames.

The government has given £510 million for infrastructure improvements to Ebbsfleet, which proposes 15,000 houses.

Canterbury proposes 16,000 houses and has negotiated not one penny.

With £510 million we could build an eastern bypass and repair every pothole in the district.

Do we build thousands of new houses in our district to have them bought up wholesale by London boroughs to rehouse their homeless?

Do we build thousands of new houses with 30% affordable when ‘affordable’ means 80% of market price.

How many of our homeless can afford a £200,000 ‘affordable’ home?

Developers won’t build genuinely affordable homes.

Their job is to maximise profits. Since when was a new house a cheap house?

We need a total rethink of town planning. Building communities with joined-up infrastructure, integrated transport systems, factory-built homes, eco homes, council homes. A revolution? No, just something we could learn from our Continental neighbours! Nick Eden-green, Lib Dem, Wincheap Ward Dane John, Canterbury

The quick and cheap polls published in the press got the result wrong because their samples were miscalculated – they asked too many Labour supporters.

Will the result on June 23 be another surprise? This time it’s not previous party support that seems to matter most but age, as Prof Scase found in his pub chats (which fits Harry Bell’s finding as the young tend to be better educated).

Most young people don’t want to see the barriers put back up, many seeing their future in Europe or the wider world.

Older people tend to look back more, fearing changes such as those brought by immigration.

So the polls – to get the result right – need to get their age balance right, rather than class or party support.

Here’s the twist, and why the outcome could be open up to the last minute.

People listen to their family and friends more than they do to politicians or media pundits.

If all the young people who want Britain to stay in Europe worked hard on persuading their own grandparents and their grandparents’ generation, might they not swing the result? Michael Steed Dover Street, Canterbury

The UK has been fortunate to have been the investment destination of choice for many international companies over the past few decades.

A key reason for this investment is the UK has been a strategic stepping stone to the EU market.

I was talking this week to a leading American company in nutritional products.

They made it clear that they have already taken the decision to pull much of their investment out of the UK if this country decides to leave the EU in the referendum next week. They will most likely invest in Germany or Poland instead.

This is not scaremongering. This is simple commercial logic for any company wishing to be at the heart of the world’s largest economic market.

What is worrying is that this company is certainly not alone. Simon Pettman Cathedral View, Market Way, Canterbury

In 1940 we were forced out of mainland Europe by the German army, who then proceeded to take over most of the rest of Europe.

We remained an isolated island, helped only by our still considerable Commonwealth, until America joined with us and we became strong enough to return in 1944.

If we leave this time it will be a selfinflicted withdrawal and Germany will again become the dominant power in Europe, albeit economically.

However, there will be no return and we will remain in isolation for the foreseeable future as our economic ties with the Commonwealth have declined and the US has made it quite clear that they are not going to come to our assistance.

Like it or not, we are, and always have been, part of Europe and we would be far better off using our considerable influence to improve the EU rather than living in splendid isolation ruled by the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage et al!

If you listen carefully to what they say, they tell you what is wrong with the EU and claim leaving will solve all our problems.

However, they never actually say how they propose to solve these problems because, quite frankly like us, they don’t